Just read and article on reuters concerning the F-22 oxygen system issues, butat the bottom there is a paragraph that is very interesting to me.

"Lockheed rolled the last F-22 fighter out of its Marietta, Georgia facility last month, but the Air Force is preserving the hardware used to build the jet, which would allow it to restart production for about $200 million."

That's what I meant. It made sense in my head, but now that I re-read it, it doesn't make sense anymore. What I was getting at was the $200M to restart is not even double the price per plane, I would have thought it would have been a lot more ($500-600M).

The way I read it, the 200'million is the cost of preserving the tooling should they ever want to relaunch production. RAND did a good study on ressurecting the Raptor line, and they estimated a cost far higher than 200 mil I believe.

Nor would many of us argue that more Raptors should be produced WITH the upgrades in them.

Nor would many of us argue a modified Raptor FB model for the USAF's new bomber program.

The expensive part is paid for, why not utilize it.

If you spend $150 setup fee to get T-shirts printed, why would you only order 10? Likewise if you spend $60B on on setting up a fighter program, why would you CUT your order to 187 and drive the costs way up?

We have the cookie cutters, why not make more cookies?

If we're selling the freshest cookies (with more goodies) to the entire planet, why not sell our 'older' cookies to others as well. If they got the $$ we've got the baked goods!

TEG

[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins

hcobb - Guam, the F-22 can't reach China from Guam without tanking, and no one's built a hardened aircraft shelter for tankers.

Agree with the range issue against the FB-22. But, I think that it'll have its uses. The F-15E still needs to be replaced by something, and I think that its replacement will need a two person aircraft with a 1000nm range, ie another F-111. That's where a FB-22 can come in handy.

I don't see where the money is going to come from to pay for something like a F-22B. The F-35 program is going to require massive funding in this decade and into the next which has probably helped push back the new bomber into the mid-2020s.

It seems to me that the strategy for airborne long-range stike will continue to rely on the legacy bomber fleets, in particular the B-2. For the future, there will be the NGB and the Navy's successor to the X-47B. Perhaps there will be an AF version of the latter.

If the hypersonic glider vehicle concept is eventually weaponized, this will radically increase long-range strike by potentially leveraging thousands of VLS cellls , each accommodating such a warhead atop a SM-3 blkII. AEGIS ships and SSGN/SSN platforms become far more lethal.This is basically DARPA's Arclight Project which was reported as killed but is apparently live and kicking and being actively pursued.

Imagine being the defense planner tasked to defend against this combination of LRS options.

Look... we know you don't like the F-22. I'm not sure what the Raptor did to you to make you hate it so, but you need to stop exaggerating and stick to the facts, even if they don't support your position.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123168156"Our commitment to this aircraft is underscored by the 6 and-a half billion dollars provided over the next few years to upgrade the existing F-22 fleet to be fully mission-capable."

You can of course question the neutrality and reliability of that source if you like.